What is sacred? Respecting the spiritual beliefs and commitments of others

Comments

In answer to your question: It is your burden to prove your
mythology when you try to apply it to our laws and public and private lives.
Until you can prove that your God exists, non-believers everywhere will persist
in requiring proof from religion and the people who support it. Since you state
an opinion here it is a logical expectation for you to defend your premise.
Otherwise, I can assume you can't.

Most of us like to believe that
our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of
facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, have the ring
of soundness and intelligence. In reality, people often base their opinions on
their beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than
facts driving beliefs, people's beliefs can dictate the facts they chose to
accept. They can cause people to twist facts so they fit better with their
preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead people to uncritically accept
bad information just because it reinforces their beliefs. This reinforcement
makes them more confident they're right, and even less likely to listen to any
new information or answer challenges.

@Charlesthe greater outdoors, UT

Dec. 6, 2011 7:28 p.m.

Dear Joggle: While it may be your intention to "challenge and question [my]
assumptions" that's not my intent.

I don't have to ever justify
my beliefs to you or anyone else. I know what I believe and I believe what I
know.

You state, "I've already learned about and researched your
beliefs." Then what is your issue? You just want to interrogate LDS members
about the gospel that they hold as true and eternal. Who are you that we have to
justify, rationalize, defend, to YOUR satisfaction what we believe?

The gospel is open to all. Go to mormon dot org and study until your little
heart is content. Get the Gospel Principles manual and have at it. I have no
burden of proof to you or anyone else. It's you who has the responsibility to
come to know the truth in the manner in which God has declared. You have the
process backwards. The ball is always in your court. What you do with it will
have eternal consequences.

Christ said the path is narrow and
straight and few be there that find it. Contrite spirit and humility are
mandatory.

Good luck!

geebo2bLOS ANGELES, CA

Dec. 6, 2011 5:29 p.m.

I think there are a lot of 'unseen' dynamics in this event. First, the
acceptance of the 'outsider' was based on many pre-existing conditions and
expectations. One of the pre-existing conditions in these situations that the
one 'coming in' is expected to accept and conform to the mores and standards of
to community that she came to. At the outset, this was not a level playing
field. The one coming in would be accepted but with the tacit understanding that
she is ultimately a 'target' for conversion and will be 'accepted' even w/o
conversion UNLESS she steps over the 'community standards' and offends them And
shows no sign of possible 'conversion. I:E she wasn't really accepted as a
friend, but was a target for conversion. But she broke one of the 'tacit' rules.
So she is condemned, which, in certain circumstances can create a 'need' to be
accepted thus coercing her to take a step towards the proselytizers by
abandoning her belief in order to be accepted. If she did that, then they win
and she is accepted once more. Eventually the hope is she will abandon her faith
for theirs. They win!

JoggleClearfield, UT

Dec. 6, 2011 11:26 a.m.

@charles

Also....I also could say I see hate, anger and vitriol in
your comments toward me and others, but unlike you I don't ASSUME that is your
intention but rather my perception is that you have no reasonable response,
defense, or justification to challenges concerning your beliefs and/or religion
so you resort to untrue assumptions and ad hominems instead. It's a pattern I've
seen over and over. Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods
or religion is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Believers fail to meet
their burden of proof and thus fail to provide good reasons to accept their
claims. That is a challenge "faith" cannot meet, in my opinion.

@ksampow

You are wrong when you say that the comments posted
here that are full of attacks on other people because of their views. You make
the mistake of assuming the challenges presented are personal attacks on the
person rather than an attack (or challenge) concerning their views. There is a
difference. That's why I say people take challenging their views too personal
because they view it as a personal attack rather than viewing it as simply
challenging or disagreeing_with_their_views.

skepticPhoenix, AZ

Dec. 6, 2011 10:57 a.m.

Serenity: Thank you for your explanation. I would like to explore the subject
further but, because for some reason DN censors discussion of the real issues,
perhaps it will suffice to ask: "Are Mormons doing unto others as Mormons
would have others do unto them". DN: there is nothing wrong with this
question since the subject of the article is: "What is sacred? Respecting
the spiritual believes and commitmensts of others". Please give your
readers freedom to respond.

JoggleClearfield, UT

Dec. 6, 2011 10:44 a.m.

@Charles says: It's my experience that people like you, Vanka, Chicago and
others inquire under the guise of wanting to learn but when others answer your
questions you just shoot them down and tell them that their answers are wrong or
not a "substantive counter-argument".

With that statement
you follow just what I described. Yes, we are both free to believe what we want,
but we are also free to challenge assertions made by others and expect them to
defend, justify, and rationalize those assertions. You are also presenting an
untrue assumption. I'm here to challenge and question your assertions. I've
already learned about and researched your beliefs. When I say "substantive
counter-arguments" I'm challenging you to defend or justify your beliefs.
This challenge is due to the proselytizing nature of Christianity. I feel the
assertions organized religion presents needs to be challenged; not just accepted
without question. I see proselytizing in your post. Most religions seek to
gather new members through proselytizing, right? It is my opinion that with
proselytizing you have the possible prospect of having to overcome the
objections or answer the questions the person you approach has whether they are
seeking or NOT.

ksampowFarr West, Utah

Dec. 6, 2011 9:46 a.m.

This article is about respecting everyone and treating everyone with kindness -
just as the Savior did. There are many comments posted here that are full of
attacks on other people because of their views. Are we missing the point?

skepticPhoenix, AZ

Dec. 5, 2011 8:14 p.m.

Serenity: Thank you for your explanation. I am wondering how this may not
respect the spiritual believes of other faiths. For example how would Mormons
feel if the Moslems were to baptise deceased Mormons into the Islam faith. Would
that present a sacred problem of respect. Thx.

SerenityManti, UT

Dec. 5, 2011 4:27 p.m.

@ Skeptic:Does the LDS church perform temple baptisms of the dead of faiths
different than Mormon? The answer is, temple baptisms are done only for the
dead who were not baptized into the LDS faith in this life. The members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) have already been baptized
so a temple baptism is not necessary. The Bible requires that a person be born
again of water and of the Spirit by Baptism. The ones who are baptized in our
temples have been long dead and are baptized by proxy. In the spirit world,
just as in this life, they can accept or reject this baptism.

skepticPhoenix, AZ

Dec. 5, 2011 10:30 a.m.

Does the LDS church perform temple baptisims of the dead of faiths different
than Mormon.

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

Dec. 5, 2011 7:12 a.m.

"Whether or not it is sacred to us personally, it demands our respect in
behalf of others."..."I want people who don't believe what
I believe to respect what I believe even if they don't agree with it."

--- Then you have to be willing to respect the beliefs of others
yourself - even if you don't agree with it.

"Respect is a
by-product of education. And so our appropriate response to those who speak from
their ignorance is to love them, embrace them and lead them to desire a greater
pursuit of knowledge of the sacred."

--- And there you have it.
(MY) version is the correct one and I'll love others, and lead THEM in the
pursuit of (MY) version of knowledge of the sacred. This is just another way of
saying "love the sinner, hate the sin).

SerenityManti, UT

Dec. 5, 2011 1:01 a.m.

@Sharrona. Martin Luther was a man of many sorrows. He took his own sorrows
and melded them to our crucified Savior and how much He suffered. He was one of
the reformers of religion in those dark times and was humiliated and mortified
by his own order as a monk. Of course that poor man would say things such as
that because of the terrible injustices inflicted upon him.

A true
follower of Christ who realizes, at least to some degree the sorrow and
suffering which He went through both in the Garden of Gethsemane then
culminating in his torture and death on the cross. Christ did this out of love
for us, and He felt every pain that each one of us have ever or will ever
suffer. This is known as the Atonement and He did this out of love for us.

There are some who wear the cross as a reminder of that suffering, and
that is a good choice because they remember Christ. But as for me, I prefer to
know Him as He is at present: a beautiful, vibrant, caring and loving God.

I know that without Him, I am nothing.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Dec. 4, 2011 7:37 p.m.

@charles"underlying reason ALWAYS being that the person has not
nurtured their testimony and they lean unto their own understanding and cling to
the philosophies of men. "

Well... that is how you see it.
Obviously the person who leaves is probably disagreeing about the clinging to
the philosophies of men part. Though personally I guess I'll admit to clinging
to philosophies of men in a sense since after all... I'm following my own
beliefs. I'm sure, like everyone else, that isn't going to be 100% aligned with
God. I don't believe there is a "true church" though so I'm not nearly
as concerned with people (including myself) jumping around different
denominations as others are or disagreeing on doctrine within reason (like
say... I don't support the Westboro Baptist Church protests... well okay I
support their right to protest but strongly disagree with the substance of their
protests).

@Charlesthe greater outdoors, UT

Dec. 4, 2011 6:39 p.m.

cont'd...

What you consider "substantive counter-arguments"
will never be what I consider it. It's my experience that people like you,
Vanka, Chicago and others inquire under the guise of wanting to learn but when
others answer your questions you just shoot them down and tell them that their
answers are wrong or not a "substantive counter-argument".

Christ has said that the path is straight and narrow and few be there that
find it. He also said that it takes faith, not signs, to be a disciple of His.
He also said it takes a humble heart and contrite spirit to come to the
knowledge of His gospel. There are millions who are ever learning and never
coming to a knowledge of the truth.

@Seattle: I want to reiterate, I
have no issue with anyone who wants to leave the LDS church. I've been in enough
councils over the decades to understand that it happens for sundry reasons, with
the underlying reason ALWAYS being that the person has not nurtured their
testimony and they lean unto their own understanding and cling to the
philosophies of men.

@Charlesthe greater outdoors, UT

Dec. 4, 2011 5:28 p.m.

----

Dear Seattle: I simply stated a fact about cymrul and his/her
comments on the Dnews threads. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with
cymrul leaving the LDS church. That is a choice that cymrul will have to answer
for at the appointed time.

I quoted cymrul stating that the best
thing he/she ever did was leave the LDS church. However, by the history of
cymrul's posts anger, hate and envy have taken over his/her soul. And if I
recall correctly, most of it has to do with homosexuality and the church's
stance on that behavior.

atl is correct. While I don't agree with
much of atl's politics, I've never seen the hate, anger and vitriol that is
evident in posts by cymrul, ranch, mav, happy valley, christy, joggle/jiggle and
a few others.

----

joggle, the whole point is that you are
free to believe whatever it is you believe. So do I. As an LDS member, I don't
have to justify or rationalize my beliefs to make you feel better. It's you with
the problem, not me.

JoggleClearfield, UT

Dec. 4, 2011 11:13 a.m.

Religious believers often respond to opposing critiques of religion by claiming
that critiques and challenges are a form of religious intolerance. The
implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism or
challenges concerning their beliefs. Attacks on those that disagree with
religious belief who dare to criticize religion abound. Basically, religious
people are upset that people that disagree with religion don't treat religion
with the sort of respect, deference, and honor which religious believers do.
They don't offer substantive counter-arguments to opposing critiques of religion
because their arguments are often weak....so instead of offering a reasonable
counter-argument....they offer untrue personality assumptions or any number of
ad hominems for simply having a disagreeing opinion. Religions don't deserve
automatic respect any more than non-belief does. Sometimes, religious beliefs
shouldn't be treated with the seriousness of a logical analysis because that
imparts to them a respectability they don't deserve. It's possible for
"hating the sin" to become "hating the sinner" if a person
is not careful, so while being critical of religion and religious beliefs is
entirely justified, it's something that can go wrong no matter how tactfully it
is presented simply because of taking_it_too_personal.

EirebrainWilliamsburg, VA

Dec. 4, 2011 5:50 a.m.

It seems to me that an object's sacredness can only be measured by assessing how
the belief/symbol impacts the life of the person who holds it sacred. That
which motivates us to the highest and best, the most noble - that is sacred.
It's more about our hearts than our logos.

I feel blessed and
incredibly fortunate to have had experiences with the sacred that are tied to my
LDS faith, my Jewish and Protestant roots, and my Catholic and Evangelical
friends. I recognize and respect the beliefs of friends and associates whose
religions I cannot even name, and whose religious practices are quite different
than my own.

Because of these good people, I am motivated to be
better - kinder, more patient and generous, more involved in doing good in my
community, more respectful of this beautiful earth, more excellent in my
pursuits. I am grateful to all of you who take your faith seriously, and
honorably wear your garments, your crosses, your bindi, your plain Amish dresses
and prayer coverings.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 11:40 p.m.

@Thinksithink"@charles,

You responded to someone who
posted here that leaving the mormon church was good for them - in response you
said: "your posts are some of the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever
seen on these threads."

Why do I always hear LDS members saying
things like this about people who have resigned? "

Sometimes
it's an accurate assessment (I'm not going to find the original post to this
chain to see if that was applicable in this case, partly because I don't want to
extend any pointless bickering). I myself am someone who left the LDS church and
despite having disclosed that plenty of times I'm having difficulty remembering
any times I've had a comment directed to me that my posts were biting, angry, or
anything like that.

BobPPort Alice, B.C.

Dec. 3, 2011 11:35 p.m.

I come from a different time. One where respect is not a give, but one in which
it is earned by conduct.

I wear my temple garments proudly. I do not
wear a cross for the reasons given, I commemeorated the resurrection not the
crucifixion.

I wear a gold Star of David on a chain around my neck.
It is a political statement not a religious one.

ThinksIThinkSEATTLE, WA

Dec. 3, 2011 8:29 p.m.

@charles,

You responded to someone who posted here that leaving the
mormon church was good for them - in response you said: "your posts are
some of the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever seen on these
threads."

Why do I always hear LDS members saying things like
this about people who have resigned? Isn't that sort of the point of this
article? Not to get upset and make derogatory comments just because someone
chose not to believe what you believe anymore. Maybe you take it personal that
someone who once believed as you do concluded it was not true, and they moved
on. But the point of the article is we should still respect that person.

If a person wants their beliefs to be respected, they might want to
think twice before calling someone "biting, angry, vitriolic" . . .
simply because they don't agree with you.

@Charlesthe greater outdoors, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 7:51 p.m.

---

oh cymrul: Share with us some of those hateful things that were
said to you while you were an "active temple going member."

I can't imagine anyone saying anything hateful to another member let alone
another person. I'm also curious as to what "individuality" is being
squashed in the LDS church. Can you share some of those examples with us. I
don't know any 2 people alike at church. My ward is very diverse in
personalities, talents, teaching skills, compassion etc.

A target for
what? By whom?

You said, " The best thing I ever did was leave
it." That's an interesting statement from you since your posts are some of
the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever seen on these threads. And if I'm
not mistaken, you are a heavy advocate for homosexuality, practicing that
behavior yourself.

Standing up for truth and righteousness and
denouncing sin is always the right thing to do.

----

I'm
curious where the reporter heard/found/verified the first example written in the
story. While I'm sure those types of things are said, I'm positive they are the
exception, not the rule.

A1994Centerville, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 5:05 p.m.

He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes
offense when offense is intended is a greater fool. -Brigham Young

I
can understand the story of the young girl who received the cross necklace for
her birthday. She's too young and kids can be mean. But for adults, I don't
understand taking offense at everything that a member of the LDS said to or
about you. I have lived in Utah most of my life, but I have also live outside
of the state at times. The fact is that you can find reasons to love or hate
the place where you live no matter what. That has nothing to do with the
predominate religion. It has everything to do with attitude.

J.M.Lehi, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 4:24 p.m.

I didn't read all the comments but I'm guessing there are the usual (stories
about how awful Mormons are (some fiction, some not), professional anti-Mormons
taking the opportunity to get a dig in, gay activists who are much nicer now
days : ) thanks (saw Pagan's first)but I did look at the RE to me.

I
want to explain that Jesus Christ is the center of my religion. I really enjoy
the symbolism of the cross, and as I said, I think we should display it more,
perhaps. LDS do depict the cross, but it is more often depicted in its role as
tree of life (which we all seek), but still, it is Jesus that we focus on, His
life, His suffering, His death, His resurrection. He is the tree of life. The
cross with Jesus on it, is the tree of life.

Interestingly, there
are many valid symbols that some don't often use. The tomb, for example. It is
represented by the font, brazen sea etc. This is in our Temples (symbols of
Calvary). We don't center our religion around it though, but on God, the Son,
who died on the cross, emerged from the tomb, etc.

SammyBProvo, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 4:06 p.m.

Sharrona,

I appreciate your respectful discourse but want to say I
disagree about the cross being to Christians what Moroni is to the LDS Church.
First of all, we are Christians, but moving past that...salvation is found only
through the cross. Without that Atonement, we cannot be saved. Moroni was a
messenger and had no power to save. Only Christ does.

My favorite
scripture is from 3 Nephi 27:14. It explains that Christ was lifted up (on the
cross) so that he can lift us up. In other words, he and the Atonement wrought
on that cross is the door that returns ALL who accept and follow Christ back
into his presence.

In my opinion, where the issue lies is that some
people wear the cross as a reminder of what the Lord did for us and how much he
loves us. For others, the cross becomes an object of worship and the LDS Church
believes we worship the Lord and not the necessary but still physical object of
his death. Still, we should not condemn anyone for their personal choice, nor
judge their motivations.

KMCedar Hills, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 1:59 p.m.

pagan

Its always that one issue at the heart of all your world
view.

I respect any belief that doesn't glorify the killing of others
while blowing themselves up.

sharronalayton, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 1:25 p.m.

RE: Serenity, The Cross destroys our confidence in our own ability to discern
what God is like. By revealing himself through the suffering, weakness and
shame of the cross, so we will be more willing to learn from him. Humility is
essential, if we are to encounter and deepen our knowledge of God who was
present and active at Calvary. Resurrection Faith: God is active in a hidden
manner, Proper trust in the promises of God, God works out salvation through
suffering.(Luther)

That I may know him, and the power of his
resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto
his death;(Phil 3:10)

Just about anyone can read the N.T. and make
some sort of sense of it, But Real theologian is someone is someone who has
experienced a sense of condemnation on account of sin, and realizes that the
message of forgiveness is the good news. The gospel is experienced and
transforms our situation. (Luther).

@ HappyLDSUte; see 1COR 1:23, But
we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks
foolishness[Sereniy]. The cross is a symbol of Christianity as Moroni is to
Mormonism.

MountanmanHayden, ID

Dec. 3, 2011 12:53 p.m.

cymurl.. I fear you have confused comformitity with obedience to the Gospel. We
must conform our lives to the Gospel,not the other way around! The Gospel is not
on trial, we are!

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 12:47 p.m.

@serenity

A lot of churches use the empty cross which is a symbol of
his ressurection. The crucifix is more of a symbol of his sacrifice for our
sins.

@HappyLDSUte"Not the cross itself. That message
could be symbolized by the cross, but I think a better way to symbolize that
message is how we act towards others. I do respect the decision of my fellow
Christians to wear the cross, because I believe it is not an inherently bad
thing. I personally don't wear one, because I believe the Lord has asked me to
outwardly express my faith through another way"

This isn't a
perfect comparison because they aren't outward, but to a lot of people wearing
the cross is similar to how the LDS treat wearing the garment.

no fit in SGSt.George, Utah

Dec. 3, 2011 12:21 p.m.

Hey Kev,Try living here in Utah for awhile, and then we can talk about it.
Everyone knows things are very different outside of this state. "LDS Church
lady" is a different breed here.

HappyLDSUtePROVO, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 12:10 p.m.

@SerenityI was thinking the same thing. To add on that, 1 Cor. 1:18 must
be looked at a little deeper, I think. It's not saying- "For the message of
the CROSS is foolishness to those..." Rather, it's- "For the MESSAGE
of the cross..." Not the cross itself. That message could be symbolized by
the cross, but I think a better way to symbolize that message is how we act
towards others. I do respect the decision of my fellow Christians to wear the
cross, because I believe it is not an inherently bad thing. I personally don't
wear one, because I believe the Lord has asked me to outwardly express my faith
through another way-"34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye
love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.35 By
this shall ALL MEN KNOW that ye are MY DISCIPLES, if ye have love one to
another." (John 13:34-35)In the end if you're a LDS Christian,
Historical Christian, Catholic, or anything else, you can either believe in
those words, or say that your own religion asks you to do similarly.

KevinSurrey, BC

Dec. 3, 2011 11:41 a.m.

to:cymrul | 9:25 a.m. Dec. 3, 2011

I feel sorrow that your time as an
LDS member was not a better experience. I have been a member for over 40 years
and I have not felt the "conformity" pressure as you might have. Free
Agency is a wonderful principle and Christ never forced anyone to do anything.
However, that does not mean there are not natural consequences for personal
choices. Yes, I wear a suit, white shirt, modest tie etc every Sunday, not
because that is what is generally expect, but because I feel good doing it. We
have ward members wear all sorts of clothes to church and come from all sorts of
backgrounds but they are welcome and not "judged" out of activity.

Of course there are more expectations and standards with more
responsibility. For example, the bishop cannot show up to church with green punk
hair and a nose ring wearing ripped blue jeans. In the LDS church Christ sets
the standards and we choose to follow them or not. That does not mean all
extremes will be tolerated.

SerenityManti, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 11:02 a.m.

@Sharrona, "Theology of the Cross. The cross is the center of the Christian
faith. The haunting image of the crucified Christ is the crucible in which are
thinking about God is forged."

I respect Martin Luther. He was
a brave man who faced the powerful church which had gone very much astray at the
time. But, excuse my LDS way of thinking, isn't Christ the center of Christian
faith?

The Romans crucified our Savior, which was the eternal plan
for Him to die and overcome death and sin. But a cross itself is an instrument
of torture and the killing of criminals by a slow, torturous death. Thousands
of people were put to death by crucifixion. Each was a gory, extremely painful
death. Why should we remember our Savior by this unspeakably cruel death and
have that etched into our minds?

I would rather know my Savior as
the resurrected Christ, the same Christ who now dwells with His Father in the
eternal worlds, the same Christ who loves us individually and cares deeply for
us. It is because of Him we are saved, and only through Him can we have eternal
life and salvation.

sharronalayton, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 10:03 a.m.

Re: JM said, and then Primary teachers etc explain that we celebrate the living
Christ, but perhaps they explain this in the wrong way... I don't know.... but
it's one of those things that make me cringe a little...

Theology of
the Cross. The cross is the center of the Christian faith. The haunting image
of the crucified Christ is the crucible in which are thinking about God is
forged. Martin Luther expresses the centrally of the cross in a series
statements such as The cross alone is our theology. The cross puts everything
to the test,Luther draws a now famous distinction between the theology of glory
who seeks God apart from Jesus Christ and the theologian of the cross ,who know
God is revealed in and through the cross.

For the message of the
cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved
it is the power of God.(1cor 1:18)

cymrulWest Valley City, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 9:25 a.m.

I've had hateful things said to me by members of the LDS faith while I was still
an active temple going member. There is NO room for individuality in the LDS
faith. You have to conform in EVERY way or you are setting yourself up as a
target. The best thing I ever did was leave it.

DonODraper, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 9:09 a.m.

I am personally pleased with the tenor of the responses to this article.
Understanding and respect, not mere tolerance, will further peace and
brotherhood/sisterhood in this tumultuous world. Narrow-mindedness, a trait that
far too many possess, foments meaningless labels ("hater",
"cult", etc.), childish name-calling and worse.

As the
lyrics to the old song say, "Let there be peace...and let it begin with
me."

J.M.Lehi, UT

Dec. 3, 2011 1:07 a.m.

I didn't read the entire article yet, but wanted to say that the story of Angela
is a sad one. As a Utah Mormon I'd like to apologize. I'm one LDS who is
disappointed that we don't use the cross more (of course we know what some would
say about that!!) and I think all LDS should rejoice in seeing someone wearing
one to school (maybe even if it's Madonna etc).

My oldest daughter
(preteen)came to me a few weeks ago and asked if I knew my shirt had a cross on
it.... (perhaps she didn't notice the skull or?? : )) I explained that I did
know and that the cross was not only a symbol of the tree of knowledge and
death, but also of life (to pagans and Christians). I'm guessing that her ideas
came from people asking why LDS don't use crosses, or accusing us of not being
Christian because they aren't on our Churches, and then Primary teachers etc
explain that we celebrate the living Christ, but perhaps they explain this in
the wrong way... I don't know.... but it's one of those things that make me
cringe a little...

LasvegaspamHenderson, NV

Dec. 2, 2011 8:56 p.m.

Hutterite, to people who are believers in God and in his purposes for our lives,
I can assure you that religion already tops the important list for them. For
folks like you for whom it does not what is your problem with respecting others
priorities; especially since we believers are in the majority in the USA?

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Dec. 2, 2011 6:26 p.m.

We need to bring the level of public discourse away from what is sacred. Let's
focus on what's important. What's common. What's necessary. None of those things
are, collectively, religion.

KamiBountiful, Utah

Dec. 2, 2011 5:57 p.m.

Mountanman | 5:05 p.m. Dec. 2, 2011 Hayden, ID @ Pagan.. I hope some
day you will learn that disagreement does not equal hate! Using that word to
describe someone with whom you have a disagreement is simply an effort to
redefine and denigrate that person, much like Hitler tried to redefine Jewish
persons. The consequences and history speak for themselves! Dangerous ground to
tread on calling other people names like, "haters". Please think about
it, at least!

@Mountanman, Thank you and I agree. Oh and if you
re-read Pagan's post, he was saying that OTHERS accuse him of hating.

MountanmanHayden, ID

Dec. 2, 2011 5:05 p.m.

@ Pagan.. I hope some day you will learn that disagreement does not equal hate!
Using that word to describe someone with whom you have a disagreement is simply
an effort to redefine and denigrate that person, much like Hitler tried to
redefine Jewish persons. The consequences and history speak for themselves!
Dangerous ground to tread on calling other people names like,
"haters". Please think about it, at least!

KamiBountiful, Utah

Dec. 2, 2011 3:15 p.m.

@Pagan, I've noticed a trend among some people to use the term "hater"
when they feel that anything about the religious organization they are a member
of is being challenged. And I can tell you that I have NEVER heard any general
authority in the LDS church use that term to describe non-members of the church.
Quite to the contrary, the general authorities are constantly reminding us to
be tolerant of the beliefs of others (there is obviously a need for these
reminders). For me, once someone goes down that road its time to stop trying to
have a meaningful discussion as they are already showing unrighteous judgment
and will at that point no longer be able to see any logic in the other person's
perspective. They somehow seem to think that labelling others as
"haters" is some sort of acceptable way to deflect the position of the
other person, when in fact most third parties should be able to recognize that
the one using the term "hater" is the one using a logical fallacy.

And for
those persons, respect might never come. They use the banner of 'respect'
to only foster supporting points of view. Claiming that any differeing points of
view are 'dis-respect' that they are not allowing thier 'religious freedom.'

When I point OUT some of the harmful things some say, many claim I
'hate' them. Or, said religion.

Rather than holding them,
accountable for their actions.

To me, there IS a difference.

Anything I say? I try VERY hard to BE respectful, about.

Because the ONLY thing we have control over, is ourselves and how we handle,
situations.

Not others.

As exampled by:

'I
think we (Latter-day Saints) need to try to understand why some people have a
deep reverence for the cross, and be less quick to attack and speak against its
use.' - John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 2:11 p.m. Dec. 2, 2011

Thank
you.

John Pack Lambert of MichiganYpsilanti, MI

Dec. 2, 2011 2:11 p.m.

We as Latter-day Saints seem to quick to see the negative side of the cross. I
think we need to try to understand why some people have a deep reverence for the
cross, and be less quick to attack and speak against its use.

The
cross may not be something that we use, but we need to not turn other people
using it into an attack on them and their religion.

aumacomaSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Dec. 2, 2011 2:09 p.m.

Dang, Pagan, you beat me to it so I'll just tell you a story that happened to me
this week. A Catholic friend of mine and I were email debating the Pope's recent
hateful comments about homosexuality and I said to him that what the Pope said
was a lie and anti-Christ as the Christ that I know of and I said some truthful,
albeit unflattering, things about the Pope. He responded by saying that the
first sign of anything vile about the Pope, he will delete the email, end of
discussion. So apparently it is just fine for the Pope (or any religion that
does so) to say vile things about homosexuals and no one should be allowed to
respond to that. Religions might say they respect other points of views but some
of their actions say otherwise.

KamiBountiful, Utah

Dec. 2, 2011 2:02 p.m.

"Oh that's nice," her closest friend stammered, then turned quickly
away."In my church we don't believe in wearing crosses," another
friend said flatly."If your big brother was shot and killed, would
you wear the bullet around your neck?" another girl asked.By the end
of the day, Angela felt embarrassed and alienated."I understand that
different people believe different things," she said to her parents that
night. "But nobody asked me about what I believe, or why the necklace means
so much to me. It was like I was supposed to feel bad for wearing something that
reminds me of my faith."

Who is teaching these children to treat
their friends this way? Is this how Christ would have acted? And when these
children grow up they will wonder why "outsiders" don't like their
religion ....

VocalLocalSalt Lake, UT

Dec. 2, 2011 1:42 p.m.

I agree that we should respect each other's right to believe different things.
However I also think we should have the willingness to openly discuss
differences in beliefs and not act like we are being persecuted when someone
offers respectful criticism of those beliefs.

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

Dec. 2, 2011 1:36 p.m.

All these plea's for respect for religion...

what about respect for
the lack thereof?

Respect is a two way street. You cannot GET
respect BEFORE, you GIVE respect.

I try to respect my Mormon
friends. We may believe different things, but we create an atmosphere where we
can DISCUSS those differences, and hopefully, both learn and still part ways
as...